Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27530186›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

In vivo evaluation of cp Ti implants with modified surfaces by laser beam with and without hydroxyapatite chemical deposition and without and with thermal treatment: topographic characterization and histomorphometric analysis in rabbits.

Thallita Pereira Queiroz, Rafael Scaf de Molon, Francisley Ávila Souza, Rogério Margonar, Anahi Herrera Aparecida Thomazini, Antônio Carlos Guastaldi, Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. In vivo performance of AlJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thallita Pereira QueirozDepartment of Health Sciences, Implantology Post Graduation Course, Dental School, University Center of Araraquara (UNIARA), Avenida Jose Bonifacio, 128, Araraquara, SP, 14801-150, Brazil. thaqueiroz@hotmail.com.
Rafael Scaf de MolonDepartment of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil. molon.foar@yahoo.com.br.
Francisley Ávila SouzaDepartment of Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araçatuba, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.
Rogério MargonarDepartment of Health Sciences, Implantology Post Graduation Course, Dental School, University Center of Araraquara (UNIARA), Avenida Jose Bonifacio, 128, Araraquara, SP, 14801-150, Brazil.
Anahi Herrera Aparecida ThomaziniBiomaterials Group, Physical-Chemistry Department, Chemistry Institute of Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil.
Antônio Carlos GuastaldiBiomaterials Group, Physical-Chemistry Department, Chemistry Institute of Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil.
Eduardo Hochuli-VieiraDepartment of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araraquara, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRCentro Universitário de Araraquara · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to assess the surfaces of commercially pure titanium implants (cp Ti) with modified surfaces by laser beam (LS) with and without hydroxyapatite (HA) deposition, without (HAB) and with (HABT) thermal treatment. Furthermore, we have compared them with implants with surfaces modified by acid treatment (AS) and with machined surfaces (MS) utilizing histomorphometric and descriptive histologic analyses. MATERIAL AND

methodsSurface topography characterization was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDX), and surface roughness (Ra) before implant installation. Forty-five rabbits received seventy-five implants in their left and right tibias and were randomly divided into five groups (n = 5 implants per group): (1) cp Ti implant modified by LS, (2) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition without heat treatment (HAB), (3) cp Ti implant modified by laser beam associated with HA deposition with heat treatment (HABT), (4) cp Ti implant with modified surface by means of acid treatment (Master Porous) commercially available (AS), and (5) cp Ti implant with MS commercially available. After 30, 60, and 90 days, the animals were euthanized and the implants and surrounding bone were removed and prepared by a non-decalcified histological process. The percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) between the first three threads was evaluated to the higher cortical region.

resultsBIC (%) was statistically superior (p < 0.001) on the LS (69.36 ± 7.91, 71.67 ± 8.79, and 79.69 ± 3.3), HAB (73.22 ± 3.75, 69.48 ± 1.89, and 75.7 ± 4.62), and HABT (65.41 ± 5.51, 71.3 ± 2.5, and 79.68 ± 5.01) compared with AS (49.15 ± 5.76, 41.94 ± 2.85, and 57.18 ± 7.81) and MS (36.69 ± 7.24, 52.52 ± 2.75, and 51.31 ± 6.96) in the 30, 60, and 90-day periods, respectively. BAFO (%) of HAB at 30 days (90.17 ± 6.24) was statistically superior (p < 0.01) to all the other groups. At 60 and 90 days, BAFO of LS (87.17 ± 5.9 and 87.99 ± 2.52), HAB (85.95 ± 3.93 and 82.17 ± 3.65), and HABT (83.27 ± 1.44 and 88.67 ± 2.67) was higher than the AS (77.49 ± 5.83 and 76.42 ± 5.98) and MS (74.01 ± 4.68 and 73.81 ± 4.91).

conclusionsCollectively, our data indicate that the modified surfaces LS, HAB, and HABT favored the interaction between bone and implant and increased bone formation. In addition, HAB showed higher biological behavior favoring the osseointegration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our study provides evidence that LS, HAB, and HABT-modified surfaces improved bone-to-implant contact and increased bone formation around osseointegrated implants compared to conventional machined implants favoring the osseointegration process.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsAnimalsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDental Prosthesis DesignDurapatiteImplants, ExperimentalLasersMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningRabbitsSpectrometry, X-Ray EmissionSurface PropertiesTibiaTitaniumCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDental ImplantsDurapatiteTitaniumDental implantationHistomorphometric analysisHydroxyapatiteLaserSurface properties

Identifiers

PMID27530186
OpenAlexW2507712699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.